Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREVIEW RESPONSE LETTER - 19-00479 - 12th W & Hwy 33 - SITE PLAN Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com December 05, 2019 Keith Davidson, P.E. Public Works Director City of Rexburg 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 SUBJ: REXBURG WEST SUBDIVISION – RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS Dear Mr. Davidson, Pursuant to the preliminary plat submittal regarding Rexburg West Subdivision owned by Mitch Neibaur, the engineering drawings component of the preliminary plat submittal was submitted to the City on November 27, 2019. The submittal of the engineering drawings completes the preliminary plat submittal as the actual preliminary plat prepared by Teton View Surveying was submitted to the City sometime prior. Over the course of the past few months, the applicant, the engineer, the surveyor, and the city have had several meetings to discuss the project and the City has conducted informal reviews on progress drawings in an effort to steer the applicant toward compliance with City of Rexburg Development Code. Some of those review comments have been provided in written form to the applicant and/or the engineer. During our conversation yesterday, I offered to prepare a document indicating a response to those written comments to facilitate the City review of the engineering drawings portion of the preliminary plat submittal. This letter fulfills that offer. I understand the City has reviewed the various planning level submittals and developed written comments. I have participated in several meetings with the City and have been provided with one or more sets of written comments and seem to recall at least one document with comments as well as requirements for inclusion on the preliminary plat. However, upon checking my files, I currently have the Staff Review Summary dated April 11, 2019, the Staff Review Summary dated October 16, 2019 (which is inclusive of the April summary) ,and Ready Team meeting notes dated June 25, 2019 and September 11, 2019. At the most recent meeting with the City, the current comments were not provided. Therefore, I phoned Joel Grey this morning and he recounted verbally the comments from previous reviews. It appears that the City staff believed the conceptual design drawings were submitted as preliminary plat drawings and reviewed those drawings under that assumption. Any submittal of engineering drawings prior to November 2019 was conceptual as the configuration of the development, the agreement for an approach on Main Street, the requirements for improvements assigned to the developer regarding Main Street and 12th West, an allowance for Dr. Fullmer to proceed with construction, the need for rezoning to accommodate the Owner’s vision, street locations, lot boundaries, project phasing, and other issues were not sufficiently resolved to prepare and submit a preliminary plat. Response to City Comments from October 16, 2019 (Inclusive of applicable comments from April 11, 2019) GIS Preliminary Plat Review dated March 26, 2019 (received 8/13/19) Does the boundary close? There is no boundary description included. P a g e | 2 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com The boundary description is provided on the preliminary plat survey document. It has changed several times over the course of the project but now reflects the configuration of the development as submitted. Are the street and/or alley names unique? Street names are not good, street is a designation not a name. Same with parkway. Please change Street A and Parkway B to something else. At the time conceptual drawings were submitted and reviewed, the Owner had not designated street names. The Owner has subsequently submitted street names and received approval for those names. Is the subdivision name unique? The Owner has settled on the name Rexburg West for the subdivision and the City has approved that name. Do the lot and block numbers uniquely identify the parcel, and are they in sequence with the adjoining phases if applicable? Lot 5 Block 1 should be a different Block number. I would suggest making the lots in block one urn in order like either lot 4 or lot 6 being lot 1 and following through. After several iterations, the lot and block numbers have been assigned. They uniquely identify each parcel and are in sequence with adjoining phases. P&Z Preliminary Plat Review (received 8/13/19) A preliminary plat will need to be completed for this project. A preliminary plat complete with both survey and engineering documents was prepared and submitted in November 2019. Previous submittals were conceptual in nature. No boundary description by metes and bounds is included on the plat. Boundary description provided on most recent survey plat submittal. Streets will need named as per 11.04.040 At the time conceptual drawings were submitted and reviewed, the Owner had not designated street names. The Owner has subsequently submitted street names and received approval for those names. Does the vehicular circulation connect with adjacent properties? Lot 3 Block 1 ownership is not shown on the plat; GIS identifies this area as being owned by Matthew Melvin Griffith. West property owners are not identified on the plat. Also, lot 6 Block 1 ownership is not identified. The property ownership has been identified on the most recent survey plan submittal. Are streets gridded for connectivity? The streets are gridded for connectivity. If something else is desired, please inform the Owner. Is access to the development adequate? Access on Hwy 33 will need to be determined in conjunction with Public Works and ITD. See Public Works review notes. The Owner has submitted conceptual drawings and the preliminary plat drawings to ITD for review and comment. The City and ITD have met to discuss the access. The Owner met with four ITD P a g e | 3 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com representatives on site to discuss access. Verbal agreement from both the City and ITD was garnered for access onto Hwy. 33. Is access to neighboring parcels needed? Road stubout, Parkway B going East will need to connect to future development to the East. The stubout is provided for access to future developments to the east. Are pedestrian ways between developments adequate for the area (width 10' or greater)? See site plan. Pedestrian access is provided per City of Rexburg Engineering Standards, road cross sections. Is the intent of the public right-of-way dedication clear? Streets will need to be built to City Engineering Standards to be dedicated to the City. The Owner has discussed the street cross sections with the City and understands there are ramifications if those sections are not configured to a city standard. At present, Pahsimeroi Blvd. is not standard and the north-south leg of Sawtelle Avenue is not standard. All other streets are a standard street cross section. Are potential land use conflicts resolved? Potential issue with floodplain to the North. What is the issue? Will the subdivision stress the existing transportation system? Hwy 33 access stress. Waiting on ITD Engineering for this access. A traffic impact study was discussed. The requirement for developing that document was postponed. ITD is reviewing their requirements and may, or may not, require a TIS. Has a site plan review checklist been completed? See Site Plan Review case 19-00479. The Owner has not completed a site plan review checklist. Is that checklist relevant for a single site or for a subdivision? Does the development meet zoning requirements? The Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial supports the current zoning of Community Business Center (CBC). After some discussion with the Ready Team, the site as configured in the preliminary plat submittal meets zoning requirements. The Owner understands that if development plans outside of allowed used are desired, a zone change will be necessary in the future, though approval is not guaranteed. Are their pedestrian connections with adjacent properties? Sidewalk connectivity required on this development adjacent to streets for pedestrian access. Internal pedestrian ways required. Sidewalks are provided for connectivity to adjacent properties, along adjacent streets, and for internal circulation. Does the plat address any special development issues such as steep slopes, hazards, cemeteries, etc.? Temporary access onto 12th W just north of Fullmer office will be limited to 1 year and will need to be paved, potentially 2-3 years. Radiuses on the asphalt are needed as well. Temporary access included in the design of the subdivision. Radiuses are provided on the asphalt for the temporary access and other streets. P a g e | 4 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com PW Preliminary Plat Review Is preparation of the development agreement required? This will be started once we receive the preliminary plat. The development agreement has been discussed multiple times and the Owner anticipates working through the development agreement terms prior to Final Plat. How does access affect transportation? All access on Highway 33 will need to be approved by the State. The Owner and the City have had multiple discussions regarding Hwy. 33 and access to the development. ITD agreed that access from Hwy. 33 opposite the Valleywide approach was acceptable with certain restrictions, namely no left turning movements being allowed. Drawings have been submitted to ITD twice, one at planning level and then the current engineering drawings as part of the preliminary plat. ITD is meeting to review those drawings today, December 5. Has the applicant provided adequate detailed plans for water, sewer, storm water & drainage to meet City and State standards? Need to show all utilities on the preliminary plat. The engineering drawings for the preliminary plat submittal show water, sewer, and storm drain utilities including service laterals. Rocky Mountain Power has been approached regarding their requirement for utility easements. Public utilities will be shown in greater utility on the Final Plat plan & profile sheets. Ready Team Meeting Notes 9/11/19 The City has spoken with adjacent property owners. Acknowledged. As has the Owner. Shift the north, east-west road to put the centerline on the property line. The City has allowed half-roads to be built. At Wal-Mart, the north road has built a meaningful half to provide use. The location of the road was shifted as requested. Parking stalls. Since this is a different road standard, there would have to be an agreement. The City would plow and maintain the travel lane. The snow would then need to be picked up off the edges and hauled away. The on-street parking stalls shown cannot be counted as stalls for the property uses. Where are the 600 parking stalls needed? The Owner understands the requested and submitted road design varies from the city standards, acknowledges there may be maintenance provisions that will be the responsibility of the Owner, and that on-street parking cannot be counted as part of the parking provided. The Owner would still like to pursue the cross section presented on the preliminary plat submittal.. Permitted uses. Housing is not allowed in the zone. Hotels are allowed. No multi-family housing. There is a setback requirement for TAG. The setbacks of this project bordering the TAG zone needs to match the TAG setbacks. These comments are applicable to buildings shown by the Owner on conceptual drawings. The Owner acknowledges the constraints listed and recognizes that allowance of those uses will require a zone change, which is not being requested at this time. The approval of the subdivision, as presented on the preliminary plat submittal, does not include those elements. P a g e | 5 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com The atypical street cross sections on Main Street are dictated by ITD. The Owner acknowledges this provision. Notes say to extend water and sewer lines. Please show them on the drawing. 10” is shown on sewer line needs to be 8”. Sewer service going north will need to be able to service the properties to the West side of the north-south road or run north. Show stub-outs and storm drainage plan views. Please show sidewalks. The sidewalks are against the buildings north to south. Water and sewer line extensions have been added on the preliminary design drawings submitted as part of the preliminary plat. The sewer line was reduced to 8-inch diameter. Sewer service going north only extends to the temporary access and is not planned for construction in the 12th West corridor. Service laterals are shown as are sidewalks. Intent of design: Commercial units, condominium units with 10’ hallway for the buildings. Office and retail on the bottom floor. Building on west 3-story with multi-family, commercial on the 1st floor. Building on the east commercial on 1st floor, east side floors 2,3,4 a hotel and 5th multi-family. Mixed use zoning is suggested. The multi-family use is not allowed in Community Business Center. The preliminary plat submittal as presented does not include depiction of multi-story, multi-family structures. The Owner understands that such structures with those uses will require a zone change, recognition of setbacks for zoning of adjacent properties, substantial parking provisions, and so forth. Talk with power company. In some areas, they like to have a 15’ easement. Talk to Tony Perkins at Rocky Mountain Power. The Owner spoke with Tony Perkins at Rocky Mountain Power. He referred him to the planners in Rexburg. Tony did suggest the power company would prefer a wider easement. The Owner elected to submit the preliminary plat with easement widths as required by the City. Remove building lines and show lot lines. Shift the north, east-west road to put the centerline on the property line. The City has allowed half road Building lines removed. Lot lines shown. Verbal Comments from Joel Grey on December 5, 2019 1. The City prefers five lanes at present in lieu of seven lanes on Main Street. After multiple discussions with ITD and the City of Rexburg, the Owner understands that the ultimate design of Main Street is for seven lanes. The idea of five lanes was discussed at those meetings along with the provision of curb and gutter and the walking path as part of the Main Street road section. The resulting direction was coordination with ITD as well as the City to determine an acceptable roadway section. The Owner did consult with both agencies, submitted conceptual design drawings to both agencies, discussed the merits of the curb and gutter location corresponding with five lanes versus seven lanes, asked about the functionality of the Main Street and 12th West intersection west of 12th West with a design for seven lanes east of that intersection, haggled over the location and nature of an approach to the development from Main Street, inquired about lane configuration and striping for the right-in and right-out approach onto Main Street, requested design drawings from the City related to the future configuration of that intersection (which were provided), obtained design drawings from ITD for the Main Street and 12th West intersection, met with four representatives from ITD including the District P a g e | 6 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com Engineer at the project site to discuss their requirements, and prepared further conceptual design drawings of Main Street for preliminary review by both agencies. The Owner received comments from ITD based on the conceptual design and proceeded with completion of the engineering drawings to accompany the preliminary plat submittal for review by both public agencies The intersection as exists consist of four lanes. The westbound lanes which the Owner understands may be his responsibility as the developer on the northeast corner of the intersection, consist of a left-turn bay, a through lane, and a right-turn bay. The eastbound lane is a through lane. Based on the City’s direction to include five lanes, and considering the Owner’s understanding that their responsibility was the north half of the roadway, and additional through-lane was considered and configured into the design of the intersection. The Owner recognized the challenge this additional lane would pose for through traffic given the lane does not have a mating receiving lane west of the intersection and brought that to the attention of the City with a resulting response to prepare the design east of the intersection. By adding the additional through-lane for the west bound traffic, the north half of the ultimate seven lane configuration for Main Street is complete (center left-turn lane, two through-lanes, and a right-hand turn lane). The Owner determined with that design it was prudent to construct those lanes in their permanent location in relation to the ROW, curb and gutter, and sidewalk (in this case, a walking path). As such, the location of the west-bound lanes was shifted north creating an additional east-bound lane on the existing roadway surface. The final, or seventh lane is assumed to be a right-hand acceleration lane for east- bound traffic turning from 12th West. The Owner understands this intersection layout may not be the City’s preference, or perhaps ITD’s preference. The second through-lane may need striped such that it is not a traffic lane until sometime in the future, the lane widths may need altered, the alignment of lanes may need revised. However, if the City and/or ITD have other thoughts or requirements, that direction needs provided to the Owner before the Owner can proceed with alternate configurations. Hence, the submittal of the engineering drawings component of the preliminary plat submittal. The current, proposed, and ultimate design of Main Street/Hwy. 33 is complex; especially given ITD’s intentions to replace the interchange of Hwy. 20 and Hwy. 33 with a diverging double diamond interchange. The Owner simply want concurrence on the configuration, the road section elements included, and their responsibility for design and construction. 2. Where are locations for snow storage? The design of the subdivision was altered from one specifically intended for mixed-use to facilitate the sale of individual lots. Under this more traditional approach, each lot will be responsible for accommodated snow storage when that lot is developed. 3. Hydrants need shown. Hydrants were not shown on the conceptual drawings but are now shown on the Utility Plan in the preliminary plat submittal. 4. The north-south leg of Sawtelle Avenue is not a standard City road cross section. The Owner is aware this section is not a standard City road cross section. The Owner further understands this likely means the City will not provide maintenance of that road and such will be the responsibility of the Owner or others and those provisions will be spelled out in the development P a g e | 7 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com agreement. With that knowledge, the Owner elected to continue with the desired road cross section as presented. 5. Are easements for utilities shown? The City specifically suggested a discussion with Rocky Mountain Power as they have been requesting wider utility easements. The utility easements are shown on the survey plan as well as the current site plan. The Owner did talk with Rocky Mountain Power and Rocky Mountain Power did suggest a wider utility easement. The Owner elected to proceed with the preliminary plat utilizing the easement widths required by the City. When Rocky Mountain Power prepares their design prior to final plat and determines where they would like to place transformers, the Owner will widen the easement in that location. 6. Show service laterals for water and sewer utilities. Service laterals were not shown on the conceptual drawings but are now shown on the Utility Plan in the preliminary plat submittal. 7. The City does not like the location and/or configuration of the island on Main Street limiting turning movements to right-in and right-out. See the response to comment number one. Both ITD and the City limited the approach to the right-in, right-out turning movements with ITD encouraging a physical barrier precluding any left turn movements. The island as shown is the Owner’s first attempt at providing the requesting traffic control measure. If one, or both, agencies prefer a different measure or a different configuration, the Owner needs that direction and requests concurrence from both agencies. The Owner would like the solution to be less intrusive if possible. 8. The City requires 8-inch water lines. A note on Utility Plan refers to 6-inch lines. Note I on the Utility Plan states, “Minimum water main size shall be 8-inch diameter, unless a 6-inch line is specifically approved by the city engineer.” I believe the note come from the City of Rexburg Design Standards. However, the size of the proposed water mains is not specifically called out. That will be rectified for the final plat submittal. 9. The service lateral location on the east-west leg of Sawtelle Avenue falls within the boundaries of a driveway approach. This is not permissible. A sanitary sewer service lateral is shown at the location indicated. It will be moved and shown on the final plat submittal. There is also no water service lateral shown for that lot. This will also be rectified on the final plan submittal. 10. Valves are not shown on the end of water lines for future connections. Water valves were not shown on the conceptual drawings but are now shown on the Utility Plan in the preliminary plat submittal. 11. Provide storm drain calculations. As a subdivision, the Owner understands that if common stormwater retention is not provide that each lot is responsible for on-site storm retention and review of stormwater runoff calculations and stormwater retention is part of the review when each lot submits development plans. It may be that during a previous submittal of conceptual plans that buildings were tentatively shown on the drawings, triggering the P a g e | 8 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com comment for stormwater runoff calculations for the entire development. With the preliminary plat submittal, the buildings are not presented for review and the subdivision is presented with individual lots. However, provision for managing stormwater runoff from the public streets is required. Stormwater runoff calculations associated with that portion of the project is presented on the Grading and Drainage Plan and the catch basins with infiltrators using the detail in the City of Rexburg Engineering Standards is called out on the drawings for managing that stormwater. 12. Intermediate cross-walks are discouraged. See response to comment 1. The Owner is aware this is not standard for the City of Rexburg. The Owner also contends the City has allowed interblock crosswalks in other development projects. The Owner further understands that given the nonstandard street cross section and the obligation for the Owner to maintain the roadway that this element may be allowed with any restriction described in the development agreement. 13. A sewer connection is not shown on the west side of the development. The sanitary sewer for the development is collected near the corner of Sawtelle Avenue, then directed west through an 8-inch main, connecting with the City sanitary sewer at the existing manhole on the northeast corner of the Main Street and 12th West intersection. Using correct spelling, punctuation and grammar Using correct spelling is very important especially in regards to people’s names and any business or technical terms that you may be using. You can use the spell check facility in your word processing package or consult a dictionary before having someone review your letter. Punctuation helps the reader understand your letter so it is important that you know how to use it correctly. You also need to be aware of where punctuation is used in a letter. For example, unless instructed otherwise, you should use the open punctuation style for correspondence. Open punctuation means that you do not use punctuation other than in the actual text. For example, the inside address would not have any punctuation. Open punctuation is often used in business correspondence to speed up the process of creating letters. A simple grammatical error can easily make your letter look unprofessional. Make sure that you understand the basic rules of grammar. If you are uncertain of the rules on punctuation or grammar then it would pay to consult an English language handbook or you could ask your supervisor. Conveying the correct information The purpose of a business letter is to convey specific information. Therefore, you must ensure that the correct details are provided. Any figures or financial information should be thoroughly checked before being reviewed by the person signing the letter. Making the meaning clear Try to keep your audience in mind when reviewing your work as it is important that the letter conveys the correct meaning. P a g e | 9 Imagine Sustainable Solutions to the Natural and Built Environments 3853 W. Mountain View Dr., Rexburg, ID 83440 |208-351-2824 |civilizedesign@gmail.com Ensuring the correct enclosures are included If the letter indicates that other documents will be enclosed then you must make sure that the correct documents are in fact enclosed. Reviewing your work Whenever you prepare a business letter, firstly prepare a draft copy which you have checked thoroughly. This draft copy should be presented for review. The review process may result in corrections or further information being added. Make the appropriate changes and then present the letter again for another review. This process should be repeated, until the person signing the letter is satisfied that it correctly conveys their message. Spacing Business letters are to be prepared using single line spacing unless otherwise specified by your supervisor. Standard spacing conventions to be used must include: • A single blank line space between paragraphs • A minimum of two blank lines to be left before and after the date line • A formatted sample letter is included here for your reference Sincerely, Brent E. Crowther Brent E. “Husk” Crowther, P.E., PMP, CFM, MBA President Civilize, PLLC Cc: Mitch Neibaur, 12th West Properties Jeff Rowe, PLS, Teton View Surveying